Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “saggital plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.And he goes on to point out a flaw I find much more annoying:
The banalities come from a gimmick that can be called the Straw We. First Gladwell disarmingly includes himself and the reader in a dubious consensus — for example, that “we” believe that jailing an executive will end corporate malfeasance, or that geniuses are invariably self-made prodigies or that eliminating a risk can make a system 100 percent safe. He then knocks it down with an ambiguous observation, such as that “risks are not easily manageable, accidents are not easily preventable.”This technique is by no means exclusive to Gladwell. At least before I stopped reading it, this blog was almost all Straw We.
No, they're not.
In September 1972, Roxy Music appeared on prime time TV in the UK. It was their first national TV exposure, a three-minute appearance performing their first single.That is John Taylor, of Duran Duran fame, via Tyler Cowen.
And the way they looked and sounded stunned me, and a generation of mes.
But we had no video recorders, and of course there was no YouTube. There was no way whatsoever that I could watch that appearance again, however badly I wanted to. And the power of that restriction was enormous.
The only way I could get close to that experience was to own the song. I lived in the suburbs, so I had to ride my bike for miles before I could find a store that sold music, let alone one that had the record in stock. It was a small trial of manhood and an adventure.
But once I had that song, I could play it whenever I chose. I had to go on a quest of sorts to get it, but my need was such that I did it.
Manchester United have submitted a claim of mistaken identity to the Football Association after Fábio da Silva was booked by Chris Foy against Barnsley in the Carling Cup.My understanding of the rules is that a referee's on-pitch decision, even if demonstrably wrong, stands - except in those exceptional cases when it really shouldn't.Instead the offender – for a challenge on Jamal Campbell-Ryce – was his twin brother, Rafael.
Same problem in Germany.An example of “too big to fail” never mentioned in discussions of the financial crisis are big public-works projects: In spite of staggering cost overruns, which occur in practically every project, they are never stopped. The latest example is London’s Crossrail, a new train crossing London. Original estimated cost: 3 billion pounds. Current estimated cost: 16 billion pounds. And construction hasn’t started!
I heard a talk about why this happens. I think the speaker said there was no motivation to be honest. The companies that underbid dishonestly pay no penalty; the politicians that approve their dishonest bids risk nothing.
Michael (or 'Micha') is a 17-year-old growing up in communist East Germany (GDR) in the 1970s. He spends his time with his friends listening to banned pop music, partying and trying to win over the heart of Miriam, who is dating a West Berlin boy. Over the course of the movie his best friend Mario, falls for an existentialist, gets kicked out of school and subsequently discovers he is going to be a father. The closing of the movie upsets Micha's thus far idealistic life, as Mario sells out his ideals by signing up for military service to support his girlfriend and the child.Sonnenallee and Goodbye Lenin, another lighthearted GDR-themed comedy, were criticized for being part of the retrospective glorification of the east German dictatorship, and when Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) was released, many breathed a sigh of relief: The movie, which chronicles secret police employee Gerd Wiesler's second thoughts about the morality of his actions while surveilling a playwright, finally displayed the GDR's ugly side.
Like all parasites, vampires are unable to “live” without siphoning off the energy of others. [... They] don’t kill their victims outright, they feed from time and time, dropping in for a snack whenever the mood strikes. They don’t prey on humans so much as farm them.Click on the link to read infinitedetox's idea on how this thought could be extended into a kind of new American Psycho, only more entertaining.
[...]
In a funny way, the Lucy chapters struck me as a extended allegory of the current Wall Street bailout, as every day taxpayers are asked to roll up their sleeves and give blood, and every night their contributions are handed over to disreputable individuals, many of whom probably also live in castles.
Some theorists, like my friend Roy Baumeister, believe that self-control is a general trait. My experience with weight-loss versus exercise belies this. I have weighed 95 kg for the last twenty years, and I have dieted a dozen times only to return to 95 kg each time, usually after losing about 5 kg. No self-control? Hardly. Eighteen months ago I took up walking, knowing that 10,000 steps per day halves cardiac risk for someone my age and with my profile of risk. I have walked an average of 14,000 steps per day ever since and my New Year's resolution is 5,000,000 steps in 2009. I am well on track to my goal. So self-control is for me highly domain specific. For you?The half-arsed idea was not that self-control is highly domain-specific, but that what we call self-control seems to actually be (only) two abilities: (i) The ability not to do something pleasant that you think you shouldn't do and (ii) the ability to do something unpleasant that you think you should do. If there is some truth to that, Seligman seems to be good at doing something (walking) but not at not doing something (eating); I think I'm the opposite.
He helpfully explains:"It's the World Cup and, I suppose, as always, England have already won the World Cup before they have started it," said Eriksson. "The expectation is going to be huge. But I really think they can do a great World Cup, [get to the] semi-finals or the final. England has a good chance and I hope they reach the final and win it. They can do it, for sure.Nice job, Sven!
"[...] The pressure is from a combination of the media and the public. On one hand it's ludicrous. But it's dangerous. I wished when I had the job that I could calm it down. Not a chance."
[The 19th century saw] the abandonment of the philosophy of natural rights [by many], and its replacement by technocratic utilitarianism. Instead of liberty grounded on the imperative morality of each individual's right to person and property, that is, instead of liberty being sought primarily on the basis of right and justice, utilitarianism preferred liberty as generally the best way to achieve a vaguely defined general welfare or common good.Of course, once you abandon imaginary "natural rights" and kindergarten categories such as "justice" in favour of utilitarian calculus, you might end up with views that are not libertarian at all.
Aus dem Wahl-Liveblog von SpOn.[19.55] Und was sagt Barack?
ARD-Mann Ulrich Deppendorf fragt die USA-Korrespondentin Hanni Hüsch, wie denn in Amerika die Kommentare zur deutschen Wahl lauten. "Es gibt noch keine", sagt Hüsch.
Wer wegen der ärmlichen Medienlandschaft nie Gelegenheit hatte, gute Soul-Sänger zu hören, der wird nichts Anstößiges daran finden, wenn im Fernsehen bemitleidenswerten deutschen Vorstadtjugendlichen, die auf eine Weise, die man nur als hartnäckig, verbissen oder eisern bezeichnen kann, auswendig gelernte Blues- und Gospelprhrasierungen herunterexerzieren wie eine unverstandene Schiller-Ballade, attestiert wird, sie hätten "wahnsinnige Soul-Stimmen".
Germany produces plenty of mass-market comedies and dramas for just plain folks. The problem is that movies that are supposed to tackle 'ambitious' themes often turn out so dreary.People in the German film industry tell me there's a norming process that controls access to German film subsidies. Directors have to convince committees of tastemakers to fund their projects. The filmmakers themselves, and the tastemakers, have strong preferences and prejudices. They consider themselves proudly allergic to "Hollywood" -- which they associate with Ken and Barbie actors, canned happy endings, staged dramatic confrontations, stereotyped confrontations between good and evil, unnecessary explosions, action-movie cliches, etc. They're looking for interpersonal drama, for social commentary, for moral ambiguity -- "anti-Hollywood" qualities. In fact, I've personally seen film scripts that have come back to aspiring directors with passages marked "too Hollywood."
The problem, according to my sources, is that a lot of these tastemakers and directors eventually come to stamp the dreaded "Hollywood" label on any enhanced storytelling technique -- such as suspense, or a happy ending, or a voice-over. Endings in which everything turns out basically OK will be choppped and replaced with ambiguous fade-outs. Pleasant, likable characters who we're supposed to identify with will be criticized as too "one-sided" or "subjective." Humor that's considered too broad (by stuffy Bildungsbuerger) will be squelched. The end result of this process is films that end up bland and wishy-washy even when they're supposed to be provocative.
den Seelenanker werfenIch habe nicht genau hingehört, aber ich glaube, es sollte eine Metapher für das Beten sein. In einem Liedtext der Gruppe Pur kommt es zu der Wortkombination "Seelen aneinander reiben".
I have a dream that one day, people who refuse to bet on their statements will be viewed with greater contempt than those who bet and lose.He is thinking of public figures putting their money where their mouth is, as in the famous Simon-Ehrlich wager. Now Michael Mandel writes that US congressman Jared Polis has a similar idea:
Polis, with a long history as an entrepreneur and an education supporter, was discussing ways to get the private sector to invest in desirable social goods, such as early childhood education. His point (broadly interpreted by me) was that there is a systematic market failure: Even if the social return on investment in early childhood education is high, as the data seems to show, there’s no way for private investors to take advantage of these opportunities.Charles Murray comments:
In particular, the data seems to show that improving early childhood education seems to reduce a wide variety of government expenses, including crime and prisons. Polis suggested creating securities where private investors could put money into early childhood education, and at some point in the future get a share of the cost savings.
I think we all ought to get behind this idea, and thereby prompt some unsentimental hedge-fund guys to take a hard look at the claimed returns for early childhood intervention and the data that are being used to support those claims. I predict their technical conclusion will be “You can’t be serious.”I've seen next to nothing of the relevant literature; what I have seen are wildly conflicting claims on the efficacy of early childhood intervention programmes that try to reduce various social ills - and from serious-seeming sources, too. As I still don't feel like reading up, I say let the games begin.
Indiscretion and chattiness – indeed, those are the most objectionable traits nowadays. To be sure, Germans are normally accused of humorlessness. And since the German middle classes, the “mainstream,” have lately become accustomed to pre-empt and amplify every criticism from outsiders, they have, for quite a while now, been the loudest in denouncing their own humorlessness.There's not a thing on earth the stupid educated masses in this country nowadays fear as much as being accused of doing something that's "typically German." Not realizing that their tense attempts at being as easy-going as the Italians may be a wee bit self-defeating, they have swept away all the virtues that I'm old enough to remember once characterized this country, such as seriousness where seriousness is due, a general fondness of being exact and, yes, punctuality. Should pop sociologists one day come up with a list of the ten norms in world history that were supposedly deeply ingrained in a country's culture, yet disappeared very quickly, a possible absence of "punctuality in Germany, ca. 1999-2002" should be taken as evidence that the method which was used to construct the list was faulty.
I suspect that all common diseases are caused (= made much more likely by) differences between modern life and Stone-Age life.That's from Seth Roberts. Is he right? I have no idea, but I like my hypotheses sweeping.
People talk about our subconscoious like it's the South Pole and it required vast amounts of technology and determination to finally reach the place. How do we know there aren't five or six hidden layers of personality. Or sixty-two.If you believe in Freud's Es (id), try answering that one. By now, psychologists have established beyond reasonable doubt that there are cognitive processes that never become conscious (yet have the potential to influence behaviour)*, but this has no resemblance to the Rwanda ca. 1994-style place that Freud envisioned our subconscious to be.
Liz has red, curly hair. She has never been married. She is lonely. [You know the concept 'lonely', right? No?] Her house is like 'a spinster's cell block' [Get it? No?] and she may or may not snore - there's never been anyone to tell her. [That'll really have to do.] Now, all at once, the loneliness that has come to define her [Just a reminder. Sorry, I was on a roll.] is ripped away by a funny, smart, handsome young stranger. His name is Jeremy. And he is her son.Yeah, I know, that sounds like the plot of a bloody tearjerker/romantic comedy that has Sandra Bullock in the starring role (and this is what my copy's cover looks like). But fear not! The book is by Douglas Coupland and hence good (7/10). Really, it's a reminder that knowing the plot tells you next to nothing about a narrative work of art's quality - just compare, say, Much Ado about Nothing to whatever soap opera you can think of first.
Recent surveys that have tried to gauge Americans' opinions about capitalism reveal either a public terribly confused about it, or remarkably perceptive about differences between its theory and its American manifestation. In the dark days of December 2008, as General Motors careened toward bankruptcy, a poll by Rasmussen Reports found 70% of voters endorsing a "free market" over any economy steered by government. A subsequent poll, just months later, found only 53% endorsing "capitalism" over socialism, while a third, around the same time, found that two out of three Americans believe government and big business collude in ways that hurt consumers and investors. "The fact that a 'free-market economy' attracts substantially more support than 'capitalism' may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets," said pollster Scott Rasmussen, trying to square the results. Americans seem to believe in free markets; they're just not sure they're getting them.That's not the only explanation.
We managed to reduce the equations in the paper to six. At this stage the paper was perfectly clear and was written at a level so that it could reach a broad audience. When we submitted the paper to risk, uncertainty, and insurance journals, the referees responded that the results were self-evident. After some degree of frustration, my coauthor suggested that the problem with the paper might be that we had made the argument too easy to follow, and thus referees and editors were not sufficiently impressed. He said that he could make the paper more impressive by generalizing the model. While making the same point as the original paper, the new paper would be more mathematically elegant, and it would become absolutely impenetrable to most readers. The resulting paper had fifteen equations, two propositions and proofs, dozens of additional mathematical expressions, and a mathematical appendix containing nineteen equations and even more mathematical expressions. I personally could no longer understand the paper and I could not possibly present the paper alone.To even things out, here's a case for peer review from Ben Goldacre.
The paper was published in the first journal to which we submitted.
When did sampling the 99th percentile of anything become a reliable sample? That's pretty shoddy fieldwork.
You gotta sample all the percentiles, or at least a reasonable range, to get quality data.
99th percentiles are usually known as "outliers."